Talk:Ancient literature

Dating by Archaeological Evidence
Please provide reference to archaeological discovery rather than beliefs or social title opinion. Please date relative to that evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.222.21 (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree Omnism (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Birth and Death dates for Josephus
Josephus lived from A.D 37 until 100

needs to be added to the reference as its a long way from the spurious dating of the books of Moses. Their is no evidence of any Jewish books prior to approximately 50 B.C. The Dead Sea Scrolls are possibly the oldest and they date back to the turn of the 2nd millennium. Their writing must be dated to evidence not what you want them to be???

That's not how it works. By that logic, every single item on this page would need to be dated to the oldest extant manuscript. Every classical Greek and Latin text would need to be dated to the Medieval period. Homer would need to be dated to the 1st century bce, rather than the 8th or 7th century bce. Was Thucydides written in the 10th century, or 1500 years earlier? The obvious answer is 1500 years earlier. Also, the oldest manuscripts among the dead sea scrolls are dated to 2nd century bce. The oldest fragments of the old testament to the 7th century bce. The oldest surviving copy of an ancient work has no bearing on when it was written, unless it was believed to be written later. Josephus wrote in the 1st century. The oldest copies of his works are much later, yet Josephus still wrote his works in the 1st century.174.253.64.148 (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Some poor edits
Verify and integrate better this sequence of short edits:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_literature&diff=233737145&oldid=229473618

Nobody has tackled them properly. I don't have relevant knowledge.

They are poor in form but make sense.

—6birc (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The Sumerian, Akkadian, and Babylonian text dates are completely wrong in many cases. I'll be working over the next week to fix that. NJMauthor (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Rigveda
Brahmi Hinguyt script appeared in India by the 5th century BC and it is the ancestor of all Indian writing systems.Even if the oral tradition is older,the written form of a text can be considered as literature.The written form of Rigveda cannot be older than the 5th century BC.The oral tradition of the Homeric epics are much older than the 8th century BC when we have the written form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.92.181.203 (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a judgement best left to the actual experts, isn't it. WP:RS. --dab (𒁳) 08:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * From the Sanskrit article -
 * Sanskrit was spoken in an oral society, and the oral tradition was maintained through the development of early classical Sanskrit literature. Writing was not introduced to India until after Sanskrit had evolved into the Prakrits; when it was written, the choice of writing system was influenced by the regional scripts of the scribes. Therefore, Sanskrit has no native script of its own. As such, virtually all of the major writing systems of South Asia have been used for the production of Sanskrit manuscripts. Since the late 19th century, Devanagari has become the de facto standard writing system for Sanskrit publication, quite possibly because of the European practice of printing Sanskritic texts in this script. Devanāgari is written from left to right, lacks distinct letter cases, and is recognisable by a distinctive horizontal line running along the tops of the letters that links them together.


 * The earliest known inscriptions in Sanskrit date to the 1st century BCE. They are in the Brahmi script, which was originally used for Prakrit, not Sanskrit.  It has been described as a "paradox" that the first evidence of written Sanskrit occurs centuries later than that of the Prakrit languages which are its linguistic descendants.  When Sanskrit was written down, it was first used for texts of an administrative, literary or scientific nature.  The sacred texts were preserved orally, and were set down in writing, "reluctantly" (according to one commentator), and at a comparatively late date.


 * So the Rigveda are merely a oral tradition and can not be literature before 1st century BC. it were probably not put in writing until the Gupta period. In fact the oldest manuscript are dated back to 1464 A D. Read more at: http://news.oneindia.in/2008/02/28/rigveda-manuscripts-in-preserved-safely-in-pune-institute-1204269314.html
 * If the Rigveda should be on the list as early as the oral tradition started, then the greek oral tradition also belongs much earlier, long before Homer wrote them down in around 800 BC.
 * The stories Iliad and Odyssey derived from centuries of oral tradition going back to the 13th century B.C. http://www.insidescience.org/content/geneticists-estimate-publication-date-iliad/946  Lactasamir (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't attempt to contradict another article. Shii (tock) 09:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello my friend :) Shii So you will not recognize that Rigveda are a oral tradition, and not written Literature before the Gupta period (320 to 550 CE). Literature definition - (from Latin litterae (plural); letter) is the art of written work. The word literature literally means "things made from letters"). Lactasamir (talk) 11:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not about your opinion, the article Vedic period describes expert opinion perfectly well and is well sourced. Shii (tock) 11:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My opinion? it is not Literature before it is writting down FACT I do not want to start a edit war with you my friend :) let's stop this discussion, may you have a nice day :) Lactasamir (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Dating Convention
I suggest we change the dating convention from BC to BCE, due to the latter's political correctness and growing academic use. I've already done the work, so if we agree upon the change, it can be made with just a few clicks. --Darktower 1  2  3 4  5  05:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. You say we have to follow "Political correctness" like that's a good thing?  Give me a break!  Our policy is to be neutral and go with what is most commonly used, not "politically correct" and prescriptive.  Growing academic usage?  Still not prevalent. All this does is get people riled up, actually, with all the resistance it has caused. What was the purpose again? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree: Actually, the neutral policy specifically talks about the usage of BCE vs. BC on this site, and states that there is no preference. It does not state anything about common usage having any role in the decision. Despite how riled up this may get you, we'll just vote and see what everyone thinks. --Darktower 1  2  3 4  5  06:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying you haven't given any solid reason to change, just a couple of feeble reasons, and there is more reason not to change. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did list my reasons, but I suppose in blocks of text they may have been missed. Let me list my reasons outright for everyone's convenience:
 * BCE is politically correct, while BC is not.
 * The use of BCE is growing in the academic community.
 * The article is about texts of the ancient world, and few entries in the list have any relevance to Christianity (the basis of BC).
 * Additional notes:
 * Wikipedia's Manual of Style states that there is no preference between the usage of BCE or BC.
 * Wikipedia policy dictates that the consensus of the Wikipedia community decides which should be used, and which usage is more common elsewhere has no relevance in such a decision (though it may influence individual's voting, of course). --Darktower  1  2  3 4  5  06:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw your "reasons" the first time, I just said they were feeble ones. For starters, "Politically correct" shouldn't even be mentioned here as if it were a legitimate reason, because this is a neutral encyclopedia, and the very idea goes against all our principles.  What the heck is "politically correct" anyway?  Who gets to decree what is "correct" "politically"?  Politicians - or what? Yeah, "politically correct" must mean correct in a political sense, i.e. whatever some politician says is correct.  Oh, really? Politicians in what government?  In which country? Citizens in one country may already have to listen to (or be burdened) with having to follow what their own politicians think, without having to worry about what the politicians in the next country say is correct.  But Wikipedia is used in all countries, and isn't supposed to push someone's political agenda on the whole world. So please don't embarrass yourself by suggesting that "it's politically correct" is ever a persuasive argument to do anything here. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, I don't mean to be rude here or to attack you, but you don't know what "politcal correctness" is. You might want to do a little reading and then reread what myself and the others have written here. Although the best course of action would probably be to just see how the vote plays out. --Darktower 1  2  3 4  5  22:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree: I think BCE is, in fact, the more neutral term here, especially since (as Darktower points out) this article is world-wide in scope and not limited to Christian literature or tradition. Obviously we need to use some sort of dating system, and since we are on the English Wikipedia site, it makes sense to use the European "Common Era" convention. (That is, even people who don't believe in Christ can accept BCE and CE as historically accurate yet neutral terms.) Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree: In the context of world-wide ancient literature BCE appears to be the most appropriate useage.Buistr (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so then I'll go ahead and change it back to BCE/CE for the time being. If the consensus ever changes back, I'll of course revert to BC/AD again. Thanks for participating, everyone. --Darktower 1  2  3 4  5  02:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I put a similar question to the Talk:Chinese literature page--we'll see if they decide to make the same change. Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I tried to change the page, but Til Eulenspiegel just changed it back again. This issue only requires a majority anyway, not a consensus, according to the Manual of Style, and that's what we currently have. Can someone please help so that I'm not just edit warring? Thanks. --Darktower 1  2  3 4  5  03:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the WP policy on consensus suggests that we should wait more than just a few hours. Give it a couple of days and then see if there's a clear motion either way. Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I still don't see what the harm is in changing to the more popular conclusion, even as votes may still be on their way, but waiting a couple more days to properly adjust the article is fine with me if that user would like. --Darktower 1  2  3 4  5  03:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if no one else chimes in on this topic by Sunday night, I say to go ahead and change em! Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * --Darktower 1  2  3 4  5  takes a seat and twiddles thumbs.

Lol alright, I'm going to finally fix the article now. --<font color="midnightblue">Darktower 1  2  3 <font color="darkslategrey">4  5  00:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Both BC/AD and BCE/CE refer to the same dates. Therefore there is no need to change them. The original terms should stand. rossnixon 02:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What they used to be shouldn't have an impact on your decision. Above you'll find some reasons why BCE and CE are the better choice. --<font color="midnightblue">Darktower 1  2  3 <font color="darkslategrey">4  5  02:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I looked over the article, and there are simply too many instances of BCE--we don't need that for every item in the list when the list is clear that the whole period is all within the same millenium/century. So, I took out most of the BCE/CEs and left only the ones at the top of each group. Also, I'm a bit suspicious about the reason why the article leaves off at the end of the Roman Empire--it strikes me as too Eurocentric a marker; it might still be useful, but we need to find another reason for it. (The same goes with the term "Classical Antiquity," which doesn't make much sense for Chinese and Indian literatures....) Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The actual consensus is that you have no business visiting talkpages of articles you had no part in developing and trying to switch the era convention used. BC vs. BCE is treated exactly on the same footing as "color" vs. "colour". Both are equally correct and neutral, and you are welcome to keep your personal preference to yourself, unless you are the article's original author. --dab (𒁳) 08:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite obviously wrong #1: "Both are equally correct and neutral" - color and colour is are spelling variants, BC and BCE are arconyms with quite different unfolded meaning. The first, BC, is a reference to an unprooven religious believe of massively missionizing Christendom, legitimated only by christian propaganda and use. The latter, BCE, is the correct description of the phenomenon of christian superpositing references to calendary notations of time, in addition, what makes it also the polittically correct acronym is, that it can be read alternatively both as before christian era by christians and before common era by muslims, hindus, and the rest of the un-christian world.
 * Quite obviously wrong #2: The argumentaive low point and last resort of referenc to the original author is not a all relevant. let's say: a hole class of jesuit students, called by their jesuit padre to propagandize "pagan" wikipedia-articles and "protect" them as their "property", would result in the bizare situation, that some claimed "original" autorship would result in utilizing the wikipedia, which has a wouldwide scope, as a christian propaganda-mashine.
 * Conclusions_Agree: Say by some "original" autors/admins and unlegitimately adopted rules from unsensitive desputed realms (like color -colour - cases) can not, and should not be ported to the sensitive/complicated/historcally-charged cases of terms and formulations of supremacy of missionizing faiths, cults and religions, (like xtianity,scientology and islam) but be better adressed with original sensitive neutral agreed uppon rulings - without rear views to "original" autors claiming wikipedia articles as their property (no trespassing ;). 4 agree - 2 oppose --  I would like to thank everyone for his time and patience , regards --85.183.56.74 (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.183.56.74 (talk)


 * Oppose: we encode history in many of our conventions and we ought to maintain B.C and A.D as it indicates a natural historical reference.

Strabo
The good work is lacking a VIP writer imo. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.89.144.86 (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Serious problems with this page
First off, how is it that such a simplistic and non-controversial page is locked? Locking is only for biographies, major articles and pages under review. Who locked this and why?

Secondly, whoever wrote this seems to have confused literature and texts. There is a difference that can be read on almost any wiki pages on literature. The title of the article is ancient literature yet the list is titled ancient texts. For instance, although I've entertained myself for hours with them, dictionaries are clearly not pieces of literature.

Finally, as stated at the top of the article, the main section does not have a single reference. It, and the whole page, should be removed based solely on this. It has been a year and a half since, and the authors seem to be more concerned with petty squabbles over BC/BCE than any real content.

For such an important topic that should have ample intelligent contributors this page is quite simply an embarrassment. 99.239.72.120 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Book of Job not composed in the 4th century BC
It is ludicrous for this Wikipedia page (which amazingly lacks citations) to put the composition of the Book of Job at the 4th century BC when the majority of historians put it at the 6th century BC. The page should be quickly edited to invoke the proper scholarly dating for the Book of Job rather than some fringe position in academia (see WP:Fringe theories). Here is the scholarly citation on Wikipedia's official page on the Book of Job that was used to cite a 6th century BC dating -- Kugler & Hartin 2009, p. 193. 2. --- or Kugler, Robert; Hartin, Patrick J. (2009). An Introduction to the Bible. Eerdmans. ISBN 9780802846365. --- any objections here?Korvex (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it needs to be changed but it needs to be in line with Book of Job which looks right but I've only made a cursory check. Doug Weller  talk 06:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Many missing texts
Why doesn't this article include any of the Old Testament apocrypha like the Book of Enoch or the New Testament apocrypha like the Gospel of Thomas? There are dozens of books like these that are missing from the article. --110.22.20.51 (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Latin vs Greek in Roman era
There are Roman historians listed under "Latin," but they wrote their annals in Greek only.

They are:

Quintus Fabius Pictor (3rd century BCE) Lucius Cincius Alimentus (3rd century BCE)

Gaius Acilius (2nd century BCE)

Another one is Aulus Postumius Albinus, but he isn't even listed here. Likewise, there are a whole slew of ancient writers from the Hellenistic period absent, as well as all the early church writers(both Greek and Latin)

This has the potential to be a great page and general resource, but it seems to be an article that was abandoned in its early stages.174.253.64.148 (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Planned Rewrite and future for this page...
I'm planning on rewriting and expanding this page, expanding relevant sections from my sandbox as they reach a publishable state. The goal is to bring it up to par with the "centuries in literature" pages, and then bring all of those pages up to a higher standard since many of them are lacking necessary works and citations. Based on how much material there is so far from my research, I think there is good justification for having the 5th century BCE onward ultimately be their own pages (e.g. 4th century BCE in literature) once more properly cited material has been added, with everything from the 26th century BCE to the end of the 6th century BCE staying on this page. Are there any objections to those ideas? &#32;- car chasm (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree Omnism (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Source
Please make sure you get a reliable source before posting Omnism (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)